Getting Carbon Neutral Just Got a Bit Trickier

Awhile back, the non-profit group Clean Air-Cool Planet conducted an independent review of retail carbon offset providers. The goal of the report, is to encourage more transparency and quality across retail offset providers. Carbon offsets in concept allow an individual or an organization to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by making payments for activities that overall mitigate emissions. Examples of offset methods include reforestation, investment in renewable energy or energy conservation projects, or purchasing emissions trading credits.

Offsets are controversial, in that it can be difficult to verify that they achieve real emissions reductions. Some providers offer certification to demonstrate that “their” offsets are reducing emissions. The Clean air-Cool Planet report discusses in further detail the intricacies and pitfalls of becoming carbon neutral. Some are frankly scathing of the process, damning it as a way of maintaining business as usual without making any real effort to reduce emissions. George Monbiot likens the process to the selling of indulgences in the Middle Ages, for people wishing to pay to redeem their sins without actually having to do anything to stop sinning (though there is something appealing about equating SUV ownership with sin. . . .).

Now, a new report from Integrated Sustainability Analysis-UK, a consultancy (what the British call “consulting firms”), raises more questions about the definition of the carbon footprint.

Despite its ubiquitous public use however, the scientific literature is surprisingly void of clarifications, let alone definitions of the term 'carbon footprint'. This report explores the apparent discrepancy between public and academic use of the term ‘carbon footprint’ and suggests a scientific definition based on commonly accepted accounting principles and modelling approaches. It addresses methodological questions such as system boundaries, completeness, comprehensiveness, units and robustness of the indicator.

It makes sense when you think about it. You’re plugging your airline miles into a web page, and it tells you how much more your ticket costs to be “carbon neutral”. That’s scarcely transparent. You can’t even be sure that the arithmetic is being done correctly, even before considering the more substantive methodological questions raised in ISA-UK’s report. Those who are truly interested in going the offsets route for reducing your contribution to greenhouse gas emissions need to get themselves more educated about these matters. Joel Makower over at WorldChanging has a good summary of the CA-CP report for those not sufficiently interested to wade through it. His take home point is:

You've got to ask good questions when buying offsets; the report suggests several questions to ask. Whether you'll fully grok the answers, of course, is a whole 'nother thing.

His article is informative, but he sort of leaves it up to you to figure out specifically what questions to ask. I’m ok with learning about it, but then again, I already know where to find the GHG Protocol.